- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 16,386
- Reaction score
- 7,793
- Location
- Where I am now
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Put a gun to someone's head, then ask them to do something they would not ordinarily and find out.
I'd like an explanation of that claim.
Thats nice but how did you answer the poll question?
Guns are used over 2 million times a year in this nation for lawful defense, and more often than they are used for crime-so frankly its a big issue.
How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek
I voted Right Leaning and Yes. By "people"? I mean a gun empowers ME. In certain situations, it can be "the great equalizer." And, as one of our poster's signatures says, paraphrased, "It's so much easier to carry around than a 225# buff and brave LEO."
The ideology in and of itself is not a problem. It promotes order, equity amongst people with free access to services, preventing poverty. Problem is, this is idealistic to the max and cannot happen because of human nature. The ideology is not the issue; it's incompatibility with how humans operate is.
You should probably read the article you just referenced. It doesn't support your claims.Thats nice but how did you answer the poll question?
Guns are used over 2 million times a year in this nation for lawful defense, and more often than they are used for crime-so frankly its a big issue.
How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek
From what I saw he completely acknowledges that it is fatally flawed precisely because it doesn't take true human nature into account. On paper though, it can look plausible and even good (nobody lacking for anything, everyone working for the "common good", etc) if you're into that kind of thing (to me, even if communism could be implemented exactly as envisioned it still sounds incredibly dull and stagnant).
I agree that those notions appeal to many people (understandably) but, as I said, even if communism could be implemented exactly as intended, it still sounds like some sort of utopian nightmare to me, like you completely lose your individuality and identity and become nothing more than a worker bee completely indistinguishable from all the others.
If someone ever comes up with a system that is both compatible with human nature and able to control it that is a man I want to meet. No system for governance that I have found avoids the same ends. All the different systems appear to just vary in how long they last and how the authoritarianism is applied in the end. Nothing else about it is really all that different. It seems as if the basic human nature to abuse a position of authority is the nail in every last coffin of every last ideology in existence.
Much the same as turtledudes claim that the application of communism by people leads to the mechanism by which genocide can occur, I believe that it is the application of the second amendment by people that creates the mechanism by which more gun homicide takes place. Much like in the 2A, there is also nothing in communism which says it is ok to kill people (you don't have to think communism is a good thing to realize this). There is some serious cognitive dissonance going on if you claim that communism causes genocide but the 2A doesn't cause more gun deaths.
If you disagree with me, that is fine. It is far from clear cut, I don't think the 2A is directly responsible for any deaths, and this isn't me being a 'dim gun hater':
You just described, perfectly, why human nature would never allow communism to succeed. Congrats, X... you're human. :mrgreen:
No. You dont GET to be intellectually lazy and use that weak excuse. Over 100 million people died show some respect and stop hiding behind your compensatory mechanisms.A) The wikipedia entry on that book is almost as heavily dedicated towards criticism of the book's methodology as it is describing the author's work. Not a good sign the work is particularly well respected.
B) You're still not demonstrating that Marxism killed anyone, you're still merely demonstrating that malevolent dictators are bad for the safety of their citizens --a point which we're already in agreement.
Guns are a machine for killing. They make killing easier and less personal. Like any good machine, it empowers the operator.
Yes as we all know marxists have killed everyone who has ever died
It's about some old white men fighting for their freedom and rights (But not for the freedom and rights of blacks and women.)
And a lot of help from France.
Is it turns out, the only answer to that question is "kill other people". And when it comes to Americans carrying weapons, those other people are usually other Americans. Unarmed other Americans who they feel they have the right to kill. Guns empower people to create a little bit of tyranny in their immediate vicinity. It's pretty sad to hear people raise a fuss about government tyranny and then celebrate their ability to kill their fellow citizens on a whim.
"constitutional republics" have killed plenty of people
You should probably read the article you just referenced. It doesn't support your claims.
The ideology IS itself a problem, if it can never actually exist or be achievable, and yet hundreds of millions die, Im comfortable saying there is something wrong with the ideology.
The problem is the transverse.
The numbers vary from 2.5 million to 80,000 DGUs per year. That is either orders of magnitude bigger, or smaller, than the number of gun-related crimes per year, depending on numbers you choose to use.There are varying numbers, all of which are huge.
Like I said, it depends on your definitions.Tyranny - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of TYRANNY
1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
& b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
3 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>
4 : an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>
"Tyranny" by any definition is evil!
The numbers vary from 2.5 million to 80,000 DGUs per year. That is either orders of magnitude bigger, or smaller, than the number of gun-related crimes per year, depending on numbers you choose to use.
Like I said, it depends on your definitions.
#1 and #4 here does not define 'oppressive'. #2 applies to neither UK or US governments. #3 does not define 'rigorous'. All are subjective terms.
Tyranny - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of TYRANNY
1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
& b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
3 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>
4 : an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>
"Tyranny" by any definition is evil!